And why is it that the State needs to be invoked in such an announcement, but for the legal arrangements?I think that you are missing the point by a wide margin. People want to use the term because they would like it known that they are entering into a lifetime commitment to each other. If two or more people would like to arrange legal benefits similar to those enjoyed by a married couple then that is a financial matter and not one concerned with who can and can’t get married.
Yes, I do reject it as the primary argument. If the same financial benefits were given to our hypothetical eledrly sisters, then the argument simply disappears. And I see no reason why those benefits should not be given. Marriage means much more than filing joint tax forms.And why is it that the State needs to be invoked in such an announcement, but for the legal arrangements?
You are aware that scores of posts on this forum railed against the man+woman definition of marriage on the grounds that it denied same sex pairs legal privileges. I assume you reject that argument as simply a financial matter, and missing the point.
So, what is marriage about (that warrants the State’s involvement)?Yes, I do reject it as the primary argument. If the same financial benefits were given to our hypothetical eledrly sisters, then the argument simply disappears. And I see no reason why those benefits should not be given. Marriage means much more than filing joint tax forms.
There are legal considerations in becoming a married couple. So the state wants to make it a legally binding arrangement. I’m not discounting the benefits and certainly not condemning them. If you grant someone the right to get married then it’s a given that they get the benefits that are already available to others.So, what is marriage about (that warrants the State’s involvement)?
PS. Good to hear you condemn the civil/legal rights argument!
So it’s back to being a legal arrangement and that’s the only reason the State is involved?There are legal considerations in becoming a married couple. So the state wants to make it a legally binding arrangement. I’m not discounting the benefits and certainly not condemning them. If you grant someone the right to get married then it’s a given that they get the benefits that are already available to others.
That’s a civil rights argument.
The state considers it to be a legal arrangement. If you are married then you’ll have a legal document issued by the state to prove it. Whether it should be considered as necessary is the reason for the OP. Some Christians think they should exempt themselves from being a servant of the state in making it legal.So it’s back to being a legal arrangement and that’s the only reason the State is involved?
If marriage is just a legal arrangement, it is mystifying that it is restricted in availability the way it is…any pair of unrelated persons. The eligibility criteria, since the inclusion of same sex pairs, seems…arbitrary!The state considers it to be a legal arrangement. If you are married then you’ll have a legal document issued by the state to prove it. Whether it should be considered as necessary is the reason for the OP. Some Christians think they should exempt themselves from being a servant of the state in making it legal.
I see no problem in that at all.
You disregarded what I wrote. I repeat:If 2 blokes can marry, it is difficult to see the basis for restricting arbitrary groupings. After all, we are talking about civil marriage, which we are told is simply a legal framework, that’s all.
The State certainly should object to the creation of inbred children, but the legal benefits of civil marriage are neither a prerequisite for, nor encouragement of, that!
.Remove the criminal and legal barriers to incest in states that ban 2 blokes from marrying, then marriage for 2 sisters or 2 blokes, would still be banned but opposite sex siblings would have the right to a civil marriage and be able to file joint tax returns even if they were not chaste
Good grief, it is not just a legal arrangement. That was the point which I was making. To no avail it seems…If marriage is just a legal arrangement, it is mystifying that it is restricted in availability the way it is…any pair of unrelated persons. The eligibility criteria, since the inclusion of same sex pairs, seems…arbitrary!
What more is it? A civil right to what? Legal arrangements? Why are you conflating legal arrangements with sex?Civil marriage is more than a legal framework, you continually overlook that itis a civil right. In the above example when the legal and criminal and legal barriers are removed neither 2 blokes nor 2 sisters have the right to marriage but opposite sex siblings would. It has nothing to do with gay marriage. But lets go a step further, what if the opposite sex siblings are beyond their child bearing years or otherwise infertile what harm would there be then. I am not denying that there are differences between gay marriage and incest marriage, you are the one that is.
If 2 sisters what to marry let them make a convincing case that they are entitled to the civil right of marriage. Perhaps they have a good case,
How is marriage not a civil right? Marriage comes with both rights and obligations. While we usually assume that married people have sex sex is not obligatory for marriage.What more is it? A civil right to what? Legal arrangements? Why are you conflating legal arrangements with sex?
Your further scenarios only build on the irrationality of the premise that 2 blokes can marry.
Why is this important? Why does the State need to recognize a lifetime commitment? I have a group of friends that I grew up with – we’re all pretty close, and have known each other practically our entire lives. We don’t intend to “break-up” this lifelong friendship. Shouldn’t the State recognize this?… People want to use the term because they would like it known that they are entering into a lifetime commitment to each other. …
Of course sex is what makes marriage different than other relationships. This is why the State gets involved in the first place.How is marriage not a civil right? Marriage comes with both rights and obligations. While we usually assume that married people have sex sex is not obligatory for marriage.
So would you be willing to be financially responsible for all your lifelong friends and pay their medical bills if they got sick, support them when they were out of a job, help pay for their education bills if they wanted to go back to college and get another degree? Would you be willing to combine all your finances with them and share joint checking and savings accounts with them? Would you allow all of them to make life and death medical decisions for you if you were incapacitated and were unable to do so?Why is this important? Why does the State need to recognize a lifetime commitment? I have a group of friends that I grew up with – we’re all pretty close, and have known each other practically our entire lives. We don’t intend to “break-up” this lifelong friendship. Shouldn’t the State recognize this?
So according to you Joseph and Mary must have had sex, since they were married? Or do you just deny that they were married?:ehh:Of course sex is what makes marriage different than other relationships. This is why the State gets involved in the first place.
Adding onto that, you can share personal information with a person to which you are married and if someone wanted access to the information to use against someone in legal matters the person to which s/he is married cannot be compelled to disclose it. For a life long best friend on the other hand refusing to disclose the information can result in legal charges.So would you be willing to be financially responsible for all your lifelong friends and pay their medical bills if they got sick, support them when they were out of a job, help pay for their education bills if they wanted to go back to college and get another degree? Would you be willing to combine all your finances with them and share joint checking and savings accounts with them? Would you allow all of them to make life and death medical decisions for you if you were incapacitated and were unable to do so?
Show me the quotes from Catholic dogma and state civil marriage laws that say “sex is a required or obligatory for a marriage to be a marriage.”Of course sex is what makes marriage different than other relationships. This is why the State gets involved in the first place.
If it’s a legal arrangement, it’s irrational that it’s scope is restricted. If it’s something more, eg. Involving sex, it’s irrational that the participants are not sexually complementary.How is marriage not a civil right? Marriage comes with both rights and obligations. While we usually assume that married people have sex sex is not obligatory for marriage.
I am not arguing against your faith belief, but outside of faith belief, how do you ratinalize that marriage between 2 blokes is irrational?
Is THAT what marriage is? Sounds like a legal arrangement, and very useful for 2 elderly sisters!So would you be willing to be financially responsible for all your lifelong friends and pay their medical bills if they got sick, support them when they were out of a job, help pay for their education bills if they wanted to go back to college and get another degree? Would you be willing to combine all your finances with them and share joint checking and savings accounts with them? Would you allow all of them to make life and death medical decisions for you if you were incapacitated and were unable to do so?
Are you saying such an arrangement or understanding would not be possible with a family member or lifelong friend. My sister and I would take financial responsibility for each other’s bills, support each other with the loss of a job or source of income, reach as arranged a medical decision for the other in the event of incapacitation. If necessary, I have a dear lifelong girlfriend and also one of the opposite sex, whom I can approach for such arrangements.Originally Posted by Thorolfr
So would you be willing to be financially responsible for all your lifelong friends and pay their medical bills if they got sick, support them when they were out of a job, help pay for their education bills if they wanted to go back to college and get another degree? Would you be willing to combine all your finances with them and share joint checking and savings accounts with them? Would you allow all of them to make life and death medical decisions for you if you were incapacitated and were unable to do so?
Marriage (and sex) need not come into the picture.
Now if the spousal privilege in defense of a possible criminal charge is an important reason for one to enter into a marriage with an opposite or same sex partner, I can only say, partner beware! Why would one want a partner who is a potential criminal, someone utilitarian and utterly selfish?
,